Skip to main content

About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
at the end of the war in which benjamin franklin was one of the key u.s. and initiators. over the course of many months the five peace negotiators are meeting in paris hashing out terms of the independence of the united states. lots and lots of sticking points, but their resolve all of them until they get to one last one in the fall of 1782. and the sticking point concerns whether the u.s. is going to be made responsible for giving compensation to loyalists his property has been confiscated during the war. most of the other american negotiators are okay, but benjamin franklin will not give in on this point. he says, if you grant compensation i'm not going to sign the treaty. we have to keep fighting the war. and it anticipates his later act of property related. the two rarely ever meet again. at think these family divides do matter, and i do think what i think about most is that getting into the personalities and into the individual experience is important for explaining how history has operated. >> he said that this is the first book about the loyalist exile, refugee what to you feel sh
negotiations of the end of the war and which benjamin franklin was one of the key u.s. negotiators and over the course of many months the five peace negotiators are meeting in paris and hashing out the terms of the independence of the united states and there are lots of sticking points along the way that there was until they get to the one of last one and the kind of fall of 1782i guess it is, and the sticking point concerns whether the u.s. is going to be made responsible for giving compensation to loyalist whose property is the confiscated during the war, and on this point most of the other american negotiators are okay with it adams and john jay that when gen franklin will not give in on this point and he says if you grant compensation i'm not going to sign the treaty. we have to keep on fighting the war. so if you want the reverse, you know, and it anticipates his own leader access of sort of property related vengeance. he writes william out of his will leader and the two rarely ever meet again. and i think they do better and what i think about most is getting into the personality and t
of independence, and i know that is what you mean but there is no one picture of the u.s. in 1775, because there are so many different united states, if you will and it isn't the u.s. yet, they have the colonies and they have distinct cultures and economies. >> was there a similar political mood across all 13 colonies, in 1775? >> here we get to the issue, how could they ever act together? i think they could act together because they had the same political assumptions and political values and, they had a common enemy. there is nothing like an enemy to pull diverse elements together. and to the extent britain had begun to, first of all, to try to tax the colonies, although they weren't represented in parliament, and then, when the colonies resisted, followed with others, yes, they pulled together and understood the interest of any one colony was the interest of others, and if they could -- if britain could get by, for example, destroying the assembly of new york, because it had resisted a... refused to supply british troops, if they could do that in new york they could do that in any other
to exchange u.s. debt for state that? >> guest: profoundly important. this went into effect. all of the unrest in the states was in part a response to the taxation of the 1780s where the states were trying to retire their revolutionary war debt by taxes on land, a multiple of what they had been before and the people were very rested but hamilton proposed a brilliant idea, that all the state debts would become a natural death. national debt. he would issue bondss on the united states. a 4% rather than 6%. and didn't have to pay the principal we believe. all you had to pay was the interest. you could do that on the revenue that was coming and on the imports plus some excise taxes and the unfortunate run on whiskey. if basically what he did was to relieve a component of their budget which was the majority what we were raising money for. when the state and loggerhead to pay off their revolutionary war debt they no longer had to impose these taxes and the country became much more peaceful. >> host: next call from john in dallas. >> i'm reading about the history of propaganda in america. stuart spea
on the american revolution, "liberty," are so wonderful. i use that in my high school u.s. history classes. >> guest: that's wonderful. >> host: and this tweet is from a middle school history teacher. it seems it is not possible to determine original intent. your thoughts, please, and that's from chris. >> guest: well, depends on what you mean by original intent. as i've said earlier, scalia said he is not interested in original intent, that is that he's not interested in what people meant to say which is very difficult to determine. but in what they say in the meaning of the words of a given statute. i think, i think that it is useful to look, for jurists to look at what either the drafters or the ratifiers said about given provisions of the constitution. there you can, i think, find information that is of use. there is no original intent, there is no original understanding of the constitution as a whole, but usually the questions are much more specific. and you can find some information, but i see no reason to think that we are bound to understand those or to continue the provisions, to
. maier we have twitter.n fromit >> what was the significance of alexander hamilton's plan to exchange u.s. debt for the state that? >> guest: a profoundly important proposal. all of the unrest on the states was in part response to the taxation of the 1780s which they tried to retire they revolutionary war by the taxes on the way and that were a multiple before but it was a brilliant idea that they could have become national debt. those issuing bonds on the united states paid 4% instead of 6% and not have to take the principal offo immediately but just the interest. the revenue that was coming from the taxes on the imports plus the excise tax including the unfortunate one on whiskey, but he basically what he did was to relieve the states of ant o component of the budget which was the majority ofit whaty they were raising money for.oney when the state's head noio longern to have the taxes than the country became more peaceful. >> host: in the next call comes from dallas. >> caller: i am reading the history of propaganda in america by ewing and he speaks of a massive propaganda machine like
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)